You may remember the thread that I started about a letter to the editor in my local paper...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=345657
Well, they published my response on Thursday:
Gun free’ doesn’t work
Anne Stebbins Funderburk brings many common misconceptions about carrying a loaded firearm to the forefront in her letter, "Loaded guns in Acadia," (BDN, March 4) concerning a proposed amendment to the Acadia National Park Improvement Act.
While protection from animal attacks is a good reason to be armed, most armed citizens are more concerned with an attack from a bad human. Creating a gun-free zone does nothing to prevent crime. A bad person desiring to prey on innocent people will be drawn to a place where they will not likely face resistance, such as a so-called gun-free zone. The problem is, the bad person won’t obey the gun-free zone restriction.
I applaud our law enforcement officers for the job they do, but does anyone believe they can stop an imminent threat to life? When seconds count, police are only minutes away, but in the backwoods of Acadia, or any national park, they are perhaps hours away.
Self defense is the most fundamental of all human rights. That right is not "given" by the second amendment, nor can it be morally taken away by anyone. Gun-free zones in schools, shopping malls or national parks do not work, which was proven at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Could an armed citizen have stopped murder in the recent mall shootings, both of which were "gun-free zones?"
Hopefully I did the high road people proud here. There was so many things that one could argue in the first letter, it was difficult to make it less than 300 words!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=345657
Well, they published my response on Thursday:
Gun free’ doesn’t work
Anne Stebbins Funderburk brings many common misconceptions about carrying a loaded firearm to the forefront in her letter, "Loaded guns in Acadia," (BDN, March 4) concerning a proposed amendment to the Acadia National Park Improvement Act.
While protection from animal attacks is a good reason to be armed, most armed citizens are more concerned with an attack from a bad human. Creating a gun-free zone does nothing to prevent crime. A bad person desiring to prey on innocent people will be drawn to a place where they will not likely face resistance, such as a so-called gun-free zone. The problem is, the bad person won’t obey the gun-free zone restriction.
I applaud our law enforcement officers for the job they do, but does anyone believe they can stop an imminent threat to life? When seconds count, police are only minutes away, but in the backwoods of Acadia, or any national park, they are perhaps hours away.
Self defense is the most fundamental of all human rights. That right is not "given" by the second amendment, nor can it be morally taken away by anyone. Gun-free zones in schools, shopping malls or national parks do not work, which was proven at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Could an armed citizen have stopped murder in the recent mall shootings, both of which were "gun-free zones?"
Hopefully I did the high road people proud here. There was so many things that one could argue in the first letter, it was difficult to make it less than 300 words!
